'The great number of Oxford educated scientists who understand and support evolution and regard creationism as tat are the ones I respect runner.

says it all Rusty. Closed and bigotted just like you claim Creationist are.

Please clarify your opinion that education has been dumbed down
Rusty Catheder,
Once they attain your level education it can be seen as worthwile but let me tell from my perspective on the ground it certainly does give the impression of education having been dumbed down. We can't get apprentices because too many are too dumb to be apprentices of a trade so they take the next available opportunity which is the Public Service. The rest is in the daily evidence.

Individual, I see no dUmbing down in my areas. My partner is a Surgical nurse, paleobiologist and Head trainer at her hospital who saw lowered standards by private training organisations but excellent training of university-trained nurses, particularly from Griffith uni over the last five years.

*runner* claims that courses have been dumbed down (through no direct experience whatsoever of his own) specifically to benefit females. I think that is rich considering how proud he is of his own daughter's degree, and his son's current enrolment. Is he proud of the clear objective benchmark they reached, or derisory of their "dumbed down" achievements? He can pick one of these any time he likes.

"Dumbing down" might well be real, but I think creationists (in the USA most notably, but a demonstrable affliction worldwide) need it inordinately more desperately than females, on average.

rusty.

Rusty,
In circles such as medicine for the elitists of course the high standards are order of the day but in the everyday community there is a definite dumbing down. Even some in the elitist circles are affected by dumbing down as is evident by drug dependency just for social reasons.
The more stupid get hooked on the el cheapo Hooch which compliments their poor mentality.

Gosh, what a lot of vituperation! Well, a few points I suppose:

* the term 'baby journalist' is humour, and maybe a bit of self-deprecation. You might have to look that up;

* the entire piece was about my observation. The point is that we see what we want to see, not necessarily what's there. Boys play with dolls, when they think these are 'models';

* the real world puts labels on things that, as i said, we have been taught to believe, but may not stand up to scrutiny;

* of course the pink aisles are there because of a view that there is demand. There is demand because people have been encouraged to believe in absolute differences between the genders. This is a very circular argument,don't you think - notions of gender difference are taught (partly to encourage market demand), so the market responds in kind, so ....

* my boys are fine thanks. They have broad interests, they aren't bigots, they are pleasant to their fellows and they've never hit anyone;

* I'm not actually saying there are no differences between men and women, boys and girls - what i am saying is that, firstly, we don't know what they are and, secondly, they probably don't matter much.

* my point is about clear thinking.

Incidentally, it's not really about the colour pink, or purple. Though these are, as pointed out by that strange person without an actual argument, used symbolically.

Some use pink simply as a symbol of girls, girl-power etc; some - such as toy vendors - appear to use it to stamp gender on to particular toys. That was my point, of course.

There is nothing at all wrong with using colour, or anything else within reason, to aid in making a cause or demographic more prominent.

There is a problem when it is part of something that negatively defines people.

Perhaps if people could read the article for the simple point it makes.

If you think little girls think entirely independently of the gendered blather of everyday media and commerce, do say so. Then tell me how.